Options
Klin, Peter
Loading...
4 results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- PublicationOpen AccessANALISI DELLA RISPOSTA SISMICA LOCALE A SAN GIULIANO DI PUGLIA CON MODELLI 1D, 2D e 3D(2009)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Puglia, R.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Klin, P.; Centro Ricerche Sismologiche, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, Trieste, Italia ;Pagliaroli, A.; Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italia ;Ladina, C.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione CNT, Roma, Italia ;Priolo, E.; Centro Ricerche Sismologiche, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, Trieste, Italia ;Lanzo, G.; Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italia ;Silvestri, F.; Dipartimento di Ingegneria Idraulica, Geotecnica ed Ambientale, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”, Napoli, Italia; ; ; ; ; ; The paper reports the comparison between 1D, 2D and 3D numerical simulations of seismic site response at San Giuliano di Puglia (Italy) and the amplification recorded in the aftershocks following the 31.X.2002 Molise earthquake (MW=5.7). The records were taken by mobile stations installed in the historical center on a soft rock outcrop and in the newer part of the town on a marly clay formation. The site response analyses by the 3D model involved a subsoil volume of about a 2000 x 2000 x 1500 m, including the extension of the whole town center at surface. 2D site response analyses were carried out on a section developing along the longitudinal axis of the town, and 1D simulations were referred to the subsoil profiles at the seismic stations. 1D and 2D models accounted for the heterogeneity of clayey formation, along both vertical and horizontal directions, as evidenced by a comprehensive geotechnical investigation. The results of numerical predictions are compared to the aftershocks records in terms of amplification functions and ground motion parameters (peak acceleration and Housner intensity).456 3417 - PublicationRestrictedAnalysis of Site Response and Building Damage Distribution Induced by the 31 October 2002 Earthquake at San Giuliano di Puglia (Italy)(2013)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; This paper concerns the analysis of the site amplification that significantly influenced the non-uniform damage distribution observed at San Giuliano di Puglia(Italy)afterthe2002Moliseearthquake(MW=5.7).Infact,thehistorical coreofthetown,settledonoutcroppingrock,receivedlessdamagethanthemore recent buildings, founded on a clayey subsoil. Comprehensive geotechnical and geophysicalinvestigationsallowedadetaileddefinitionofthesubsoilmodel.The seismicresponseofthesubsoilwasanalyzedthrough2-Dfinite-elementand3-D spectral-elementmethods.Theaccuracyofsuchmodelswasverifiedbycomparing the numerical predictions to the aftershocks recorded by a temporary seismic network.Aftercalibration,theseismicresponsetoasyntheticinputmotionreproducing the main shock was simulated. The influence of site amplification on the damage distribution observed was finally interpreted by combining the predicted variation of ground motion parameters with the structural vulnerability of the buildings.237 3 - PublicationRestrictedThe Campi Flegrei Blind Test: Evaluating the Imaging Capability of Local Earthquake Tomography in a Volcanic Area(2012)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Priolo, E.; Dipartimento Centro di Ricerche Sismologiche (CRS), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e di Oceanografia Sperimentale (OGS) ;Lovisa, L.; Dipartimento Centro di Ricerche Sismologiche (CRS), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e di Oceanografia Sperimentale (OGS) ;Zollo, A.; Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit`a degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”,Napoli, Italy ;B¨ohm, G.; Dipartimento di Geofisica della Litosfera (GDL), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e di Oceanografia Sperimentale (OGS), Trieste, Italy ;D’Auria, L.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione OV, Napoli, Italia ;Gautier, S.; G´eosciences Montpellier, UMR 5243 CNRS, University Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France ;Gentile, F.; Dipartimento Centro di Ricerche Sismologiche (CRS), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e di Oceanografia Sperimentale (OGS) ;Klin, P.; Dipartimento Centro di Ricerche Sismologiche (CRS), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e di Oceanografia Sperimentale (OGS) ;Latorre, D.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione CNT, Roma, Italia ;Michelini, A.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione CNT, Roma, Italia ;Vanorio, T.; Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA ;Virieux, J.; Institut des Sciences de la Terre (ISTerre), The Universit´e Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; During the 1982–1984 bradyseismic crises in the Campi Flegrei area (Italy), the University of Wisconsin deployed a network of seismological stations to record local earthquakes. In order to analyse the potential of the recorded data in terms of tomographic imaging, a blind test was recently set up and carried out in the framework of a research project. A model representing a hypothetical 3D structure of the area containing the Campi Flegrei caldera was also set up, and a synthetic dataset of time arrivals was in turn computed. The synthetic dataset consists of several thousand P- and S-time arrivals, computed at about fourteen stations. The tomographic inversion was performed by four independent teams using different methods. The teams had no knowledge of either the input velocity model or the earthquake hypocenters used to create the synthetic dataset. The results obtained by the different groups were compared and analysed in light of the true model. This work provides a thorough analysis of the earthquake tomography potential of the dataset recording the seismic activity at Campi Flegrei in the 1982–1984 period. It shows that all the tested earthquake tomography methods provide reliable low-resolution images of the background velocity field of the Campi Flegrei area, but with some differences. However, none of them succeeds in detecting the hypothetical structure details (i.e. with a size smaller than about 1.5–2 km), such as a magmatic chamber 4 km deep and especially the smaller, isolated bodies, which represent possible magmatic chimneys and intrusions.359 30 - PublicationOpen AccessTask 3 - Molise -Deliverables D9-D10-D11: Risposta sismica locale a S.Giuliano di Puglia (CB) e in alcuni comuni confinanti(2007-07)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Pacor, F.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Lovati, S.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Rovelli, A.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Caserta, A.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Nieto, D.; INOGS Trieste ;Bohm, G.; INOGS Trieste ;Priolo, E.; INOGS Trieste ;Klinc, P.; INOGS Trieste ;Laurenzano, G.; INOGS Trieste ;Palmieri, F.; INOGS Trieste ;Marello, L.; INOGS Trieste ;Piscitelli, S.; IMAA CNR Potenza ;Mucciarelli, M.; universita' Basilicata ;Strollo, A.; GFZ Postdam ;Gallipoli, M. R.; IMAA CNR Potenza ;Caputo, E.; universita' Basilicata ;Pelli, F.; Geodeco Spa ;Silvestri, F.; universita' Cosenza ;Puglia, R.; universita' Cosenza ;Maugeri, M.; universita' Catania ;Grasso, S.; universita' Catania ;Eva, C.; universita' Genova ;Ferretti, G.; universita' Genova; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 181 212